Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did..... And posted the definition. They are both the SAME! But as of now none of it matters. You've proven without a doubt you're a liar, and don't have a clue of what you speak.
No, they're not the same …
Once again, personal insults …
Dude, get over it … You're not helping your case ...
So … You claim that a hunter who takes a two year old doe is as likely to have her head stuffed and mounted as if (s)he had taken a ten point buck … ???
I "claimed" no such thing. An antlerless animal is not considered a trophy by most people. Unless you're a 10 year old adolescent out on his first deer hunt. Even then, the smile on their face is usually considered to be a trophy in itself. (Something else you've never done). They are harvested for their meat and population control in certain areas of the country. Much the same as upland game. Yet again, something you would know if you had any knowledge about hunting.... Which you don't.
You are sounding more ignorant with every post you make, and proving my point in the process. (Again, not a "personal attack", but a fact). As you've proven, you know absolutely nothing about hunting. Guys like you always manage to train wreck on their own. A bit like the Peter Principal. You've risen to the level of your own incompetence. That you have done in grand fashion.
Kid, next time you pick an argument, do yourself a big favor. Try selecting a subject you actually know something about. Trust me, you'll fare a lot better.
I "claimed" no such thing. An antlerless animal is not considered a trophyby most people. Unless you're a 10 year old adolescent out on his first deer hunt. Even then, the smile on their face is usually considered to be a trophy in itself. (Something else you've never done). They are harvested for their meat and population control in certain areas of the country. Much the same as upland game. Yet again, something you would know if you had any knowledge about hunting.... Which you don't.
You are sounding more ignorant with every post you make, and proving my point in the process. (Again, not a "personal attack", but a fact). As you've proven, you know absolutely nothing about hunting. Guys like you always manage to train wreck on their own. A bit like the Peter Principal. You've risen to the level of your own incompetence. That you have done in grand fashion.
"An antler-less deer is not considered a 'trophy' by most people …" … BINGO … !!!
But hunters of my acquaintance none the less appreciate the MEAT …
In fact, MOST hunters of my acquaintance hunt for the MEAT, not the "trophy" …
"The dentist" didn't shoot "Cecil" because he was eager to be able to enjoy "lion sausage" … He just wanted the head and the cape ...
"The dentist" didn't shoot "Cecil" because he was eager to be able to enjoy "lion sausage" … He just wanted the head and the cape ...
Correct. The meat was not wasted just because Palmer himself did not consume it. It was consumed by the locals. Something that happens quite frequently, because it would be cost prohibitive to ship the meat back to the states. In many cases you cannot ship non USDA meat into the country without special, expensive permits, and or inspections. Meat shot on African big game hunts never goes to waste. (There is proof of this I posted elsewhere in this thread). The remainder of the animal, (in this case, ol' Cecil), was processed as a trophy for the hunter.
Now, once again I ask you...... How is this any different than a stateside hunter killing a Mule deer, or an Elk. Then either eating the meat, or giving it away, and mounting the animal? Either way the meat is eaten, the skin processed, and or head mounted. How is one defined BY YOU as ethical, while the other is not?
Correct. The meat was not wasted. It was consumed by the locals. Something that happens quite frequently, because it would be cost prohibitive to ship the meat back to the states. In many cases you cannot ship non USDA meat into the country without special, expensive permits, and or inspections. Meat shot on African big game hunts never goes to waste. (There is proof of this I posted elsewhere in this thread). The remainder of the animal, (in this case, ol' Cecil), was processed as a trophy for the hunter.
Now, once again I ask you...... How is this any different than a stateside hunter killing a Mule deer, or an Elk. Then either eating the meat, or giving it away, and mounting the animal? Either way the meat is eaten, the skin processed, and or head mounted. How is one defined BY YOU as ethical, while the other is not?
"Ethics" is always always always about "cases" …
Sometimes a hunter and her/his practices operate entirely ethically, sometimes not … SOME hunters (thank God, few, IMHO, are "slob" hunters …)
The particular hunter in question -- the dentist guy -- has had problems in the past, having taken a bear ILLEGALLY in Wisconsin … He is a VERY active "trophy" hunter, and I have no idea about the legality/ethics of his other very many hunts ...
No. You said "hunting" was ethical. "Trophy hunting" was not. And you said it many times in many posts. I repeatedly asked you to define the difference between the two. You could not. You kept coming back with "Google it", and assorted other nonsense. You then carried on how just because, "something was legal, did not make it ethical". I even asked you what Palmer himself did that made his taking of his lion "unethical". Again, you could not, and did not reply with an answer that made any sense. Instead you deflected and dodged. As I told you, in Palmer's case the meat was consumed, and the skin and the head processed..... Just like on any stateside big game hunt.
Now all of a sudden, you come back with this whole "case by case" argument. Which, for what it's worth, I agree with. Bad outdoorsman exist everywhere, just like bad drivers and bad car mechanics. But that in itself does not prove one type of hunting to be ethical, and another not. Which is what you've been claiming all along. So in conclusion, you have just disproven your whole mantra that, "Trophy hunting is unethical", simply based on the fact it includes the word "Trophy" in it's description. If you kill an animal, and the meat is consumed, and the skin, head, and any other body parts processed, you as a hunter have accomplished an ethical hunt. Regardless of where it takes place, what is hunted, or what name you want to tag it with. Which is exactly what Palmer did in Zimbabwe.
No. You said "hunting" was ethical. "Trophy hunting" was not. And you said it many times in many posts. I repeatedly asked you to define the difference between the two. You could not. You kept coming back with "Google it", and assorted other nonsense. You then carried on how just because, "something was legal, did not make it ethical". I even asked you what Palmer himself did that made his taking of his lion "unethical". Again, you could not, and did not reply with an answer that made any sense. Instead you deflected and dodged. As I told you, in Palmer's case the meat was consumed, and the skin and the head processed..... Just like on any stateside big game hunt.
Now all of a sudden, you come back with this whole "case by case" argument. Which, for what it's worth, I agree with. Bad outdoorsman exist everywhere, just like bad drivers and bad car mechanics. But that in itself does not prove one type of hunting to be ethical, and another not. Which is what you've been claiming all along. So in conclusion, you have just disproven your whole mantra that, "Trophy hunting is unethical", simply based on the fact it includes the word "Trophy" in it's description. If you kill an animal, and the meat is consumed, and the skin, head, and any other body parts processed, you as a hunter have accomplished an ethical hunt. Regardless of where it takes place, what is hunted, or what name you want to tag it with. Which is exactly what Palmer did in Zimbabwe.
In my (scientific) opinion, hunting for the biggest strongest wild animals simply BECAUSE they are THE biggest strongest TOP animals in the group is … yes … unethical … It is biologically harmful to the population and therefore not a good idea ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
